Effect of intravenous fentanyl on cough reflex and quality of endotracheal intubation in cats

ObjectiveTo assess the effects of intravenous (IV) fentanyl on cough reflex and quality of endotracheal intubation (ETI) in cats.Study designRandomized, blinded, negative controlled clinical trial.AnimalsA total of 30 client-owned cats undergoing general anaesthesia for diagnostic or surgical procedures.MethodsCats were sedated with dexmedetomidine (2 μg kg^–1 IV), and 5 minutes later either fentanyl (3 μg kg^–1, group F) or saline (group C) was administered IV. After alfaxalone (1.5 mg kg^–1 IV) administration and 2% lidocaine application to the larynx, ETI was attempted. If unsuccessful, alfaxalone (1 mg kg^–1 IV) was administered and ETI re-attempted. This process was repeated until successful ETI. Sedation scores, total number of ETI attempts, cough reflex, laryngeal response and quality of ETI were scored. Postinduction apnoea was recorded. Heart rate (HR) was continuously recorded and oscillometric arterial blood pressure (ABP) was measured every minute. Changes (Δ) in HR and ABP between pre-intubation and intubation were calculated. Groups were compared using univariate analysis. Statistical significance was set as p < 0.05.ResultsThe median and 95% confidence interval of alfaxalone dose was 1.5 (1.5–1.5) and 2.5 (1.5–2.5) mg kg^–1 in groups F and C, respectively (p = 0.001). The cough reflex was 2.10 (1.10–4.41) times more likely to occur in group C. The overall quality of ETI was superior in group F (p = 0.001), with lower laryngeal response to ETI (p < 0.0001) and ETI attempts (p = 0.045). No differences in HR, ABP and postinduction apnoea were found.Conclusions and clinical relevanceIn cats sedated with dexmedetomidine, fentanyl could be considered to reduce the alfaxalone induction dose, cough reflex and laryngeal response to ETI and to improve the overall quality of ETI.     

Evaluation of analgesic,sympathetic and motor effects of 1% and 2% lidocaine administered epidurally in dogs undergoing ovariohysterectomy

ObjectiveTo compare, versus a control, the sensory, sympathetic and motor blockade of lidocaine 1% and 2% administered epidurally in bitches undergoing ovariohysterectomy.Study designRandomized, blinded, controlled clinical trial.AnimalsA total of 24 mixed-breed intact female dogs.MethodsAll dogs were administered dexmedetomidine, tramadol and meloxicam prior to general anesthesia with midazolam–propofol and isoflurane. Animals were randomly assigned for an epidural injection of lidocaine 1% (0.4 mL kg⁻¹; group L1), lidocaine 2% (0.4 mL kg⁻¹; group L2) or no injection (group CONTROL). Heart rate (HR), respiratory rate (f_R), end-tidal partial pressure of carbon dioxide (Pe′CO₂), and invasive systolic (SAP), mean (MAP) and diastolic (DAP) arterial pressures were recorded every 5 minutes. Increases in physiological variables were treated with fentanyl (3 μg kg⁻¹) intravenously (IV). Phenylephrine (1 μg kg⁻¹) was administered IV when MAP was <60 mmHg. Postoperative pain [Glasgow Composite Pain Score – Short Form (GCPS–SF)] and return of normal ambulation were recorded at 1, 2, 3, 4 and 6 hours after extubation.ResultsThere were no differences over time or among groups for HR, f_R, Pe′CO₂ and SAP. MAP and DAP were lower in epidural groups than in CONTROL (p = 0.0146 and 0.0047, respectively). There was no difference in the use of phenylephrine boluses. More fentanyl was administered in CONTROL than in L1 and L2 (p = 0.011). GCPS–SF was lower for L2 than for CONTROL, and lower in L1 than in both other groups (p = 0.001). Time to ambulation was 2 (1–2) hours in L1 and 3 (2–4) hours in L2 (p = 0.004).Conclusions and clinical relevanceEpidural administration of lidocaine (0.4 mL kg⁻¹) reduced fentanyl requirements and lowered MAP and DAP. Time to ambulation decreased and postoperative pain scores were improved by use of 1% lidocaine compared with 2% lidocaine.     

Chronotropic effect of propofol or alfaxalone following fentanyl administration in healthy dogs

ObjectiveTo compare the effect of alfaxalone and propofol on heart rate (HR) and blood pressure (BP) after fentanyl administration in healthy dogs.Study designProspective, randomised clinical study.AnimalsFifty healthy client owned dogs (ASA I/II) requiring general anaesthesia for elective magnetic resonance imaging for neurological conditions.MethodsAll dogs received fentanyl 7 μg kg⁻¹ IV and were allocated randomly to receive either alfaxalone (n = 25) or propofol (n = 25) to effect until endotracheal (ET) intubation was possible. Heart rate and oscillometric BP were measured before fentanyl (baseline), after fentanyl (Time F) and after ET intubation (Time GA). Post-induction apnoea were recorded. Data were analysed using Fisher’s exact test, Mann Whitney U test and one-way anova for repeated measures as appropriate; p value <0.05 was considered significant.ResultsDogs receiving propofol showed a greater decrease in HR (-14 beat minute⁻¹, range -47 to 10) compared to alfaxalone (1 beat minute⁻¹, range -33 to 26) (p = 0.0116). Blood pressure decreased over the three time periods with no difference between groups. Incidence of post-induction apnoea was not different between groups.ConclusionFollowing fentanyl administration, anaesthetic induction with propofol resulted in a greater negative chronotropic effect while alfaxalone preserved or increased HR.Clinical relevanceFollowing fentanyl administration, HR decreases more frequently when propofol rather than alfaxalone is used as induction agent. However, given the high individual variability and the small change in predicted HR (-7.7 beats per minute after propofol), the clinical impact arising from choosing propofol or alfaxalone is likely to be small in healthy animals. Further studies in dogs with myocardial disease and altered haemodynamics are warranted.     

Effects of ketamine or midazolam continuous rate infusions on alfaxalone total intravenous anaesthesia requirements and recovery quality in healthy dogs: a randomized clinical trial

ObjectiveTo determine the alfaxalone dose reduction during total intravenous anaesthesia (TIVA) when combined with ketamine or midazolam constant rate infusions and to assess recovery quality in healthy dogs.Study designProspective, blinded clinical study.AnimalsA group of 33 healthy, client-owned dogs subjected to dental procedures.MethodsAfter premedication with intramuscular acepromazine 0.05 mg kg^-1 and methadone 0.3 mg kg^-1, anaesthetic induction started with intravenous alfaxalone 0.5 mg kg^-1 followed by either lactated Ringer’s solution (0.04 mL kg^-1, group A), ketamine (2 mg kg^-1, group AK) or midazolam (0.2 mg kg^-1, group AM) and completed with alfaxalone until endotracheal intubation was achieved. Anaesthesia was maintained with alfaxalone (6 mg kg^-1 hour^-1), adjusted (±20%) every 5 minutes to maintain a suitable level of anaesthesia. Ketamine (0.6 mg kg^-1 hour^-1) or midazolam (0.4 mg kg^-1 hour^-1) were employed for anaesthetic maintenance in groups AK and AM, respectively. Physiological variables were monitored during anaesthesia. Times from alfaxalone discontinuation to extubation, sternal recumbency and standing position were calculated. Recovery quality and incidence of adverse events were recorded. Groups were compared using parametric analysis of variance and nonparametric (Kruskal-Wallis, Chi-square, Fisher’s exact) tests as appropriate, p < 0.05.ResultsMidazolam significantly reduced alfaxalone induction and maintenance doses (46%; p = 0.034 and 32%, p = 0.012, respectively), whereas ketamine only reduced the alfaxalone induction dose (30%; p = 0.010). Recovery quality was unacceptable in nine dogs in group A, three dogs in group AK and three dogs in group AM.Conclusions and clinical relevanceMidazolam, but not ketamine, reduced the alfaxalone infusion rate, and both co-adjuvant drugs reduced the alfaxalone induction dose. Alfaxalone TIVA allowed anaesthetic maintenance for dental procedures in dogs, but the quality of anaesthetic recovery remained unacceptable irrespective of its combination with ketamine or midazolam.     

An evaluation of anaesthetic induction in healthy dogs using rapid intravenous injection of propofol or alfaxalone

ObjectiveTo evaluate quality of anaesthetic induction and cardiorespiratory effects following rapid intravenous (IV) injection of propofol or alfaxalone.Study designProspective, randomised, blinded clinical study.AnimalsSixty healthy dogs (ASA I/II) anaesthetized for elective surgery or diagnostic procedures.MethodsPremedication was intramuscular acepromazine (0.03 mg kg^?1) and meperidine (pethidine) (3 mg kg^?1). For anaesthetic induction dogs received either 3 mg kg^?1 propofol (Group P) or 1.5 mg kg^?1 alfaxalone (Group A) by rapid IV injection. Heart rate (HR), respiratory rate (f_R) and oscillometric arterial pressures were recorded prior to induction, at endotracheal intubation and at 3 and 5 minutes post-intubation. The occurrence of post-induction apnoea or hypotension was recorded. Pre-induction sedation and aspects of induction quality were scored using 4 point scales. Data were analysed using Chi-squared tests, two sample t-tests and general linear model mixed effect anova (p < 0.05).ResultsThere were no significant differences between groups with respect to sex, age, body weight, f_R, post-induction apnoea, arterial pressures, hypotension, SpO₂, sedation score or quality of induction scores. Groups behaved differently over time with respect to HR. On induction HR decreased in Group P (?2 ± 28 beats minute^?1) but increased in Group A (14 ± 33 beats minute^?1) the difference being significant (p = 0.047). However HR change following premedication also differed between groups (p = 0.006). Arterial pressures decreased significantly over time in both groups and transient hypotension occurred in eight dogs (five in Group P, three in Group A). Post-induction apnoea occurred in 31 dogs (17 in Group P, 14 in Group A). Additional drug was required to achieve endotracheal intubation in two dogs.Conclusions and Clinical relevanceRapid IV injection of propofol or alfaxalone provided suitable conditions for endotracheal intubation in healthy dogs but post-induction apnoea was observed commonly.     

Effect of benzodiazepines on the dose of alfaxalone needed for endotracheal intubation in healthy dogs

Objective

To evaluate the dose-sparing effect of midazolam or diazepam on the dose of alfaxalone required to achieve endotracheal intubation in premedicated dogs.

Clinical efficacy and cardiorespiratory effects of alfaxalone, or diazepam/fentanyl for induction of anaesthesia in dogs that are a poor anaesthetic risk

ObjectiveTo evaluate the clinical efficacy and cardiorespiratory effects of alfaxalone as an anaesthetic induction agent in dogs with moderate to severe systemic disease.Study designRandomized prospective clinical study.AnimalsForty dogs of physical status ASA III-V referred for various surgical procedures.MethodsDogs were pre-medicated with intramuscular methadone (0.2 mg kg^?1) and allocated randomly to one of two treatment groups for induction of anaesthesia: alfaxalone (ALF) 1–2 mg kg^?1 administered intravenously (IV) over 60 seconds or fentanyl 5 μg kg^?1 with diazepam 0.2 mg kg^?1± propofol 1–2 mg kg^?1 (FDP) IV to allow endotracheal intubation. Anaesthesia was maintained with isoflurane in oxygen and fentanyl infusion following both treatments. All dogs were mechanically ventilated to maintain normocapnia. Systolic blood pressure (SAP) was measured by Doppler ultrasound before and immediately after anaesthetic induction, but before isoflurane administration. Parameters recorded every 5 minutes throughout subsequent anaesthesia were heart and respiratory rates, end-tidal partial pressure of carbon dioxide and isoflurane, oxygen saturation of haemoglobin and invasive systolic, diastolic and mean arterial blood pressure. Quality of anaesthetic induction and recovery were recorded. Continuous variables were assessed for normality and analyzed with the Mann Whitney U test. Repeated measures were log transformed and analyzed with repeated measures anova (p < 0.05).ResultsTreatment groups were similar for continuous and categorical data. Anaesthetic induction quality was good following both treatments. Pre-induction and post-induction systolic blood pressure did not differ between treatments and there was no significant change after induction. The parameters measured throughout the subsequent anaesthetic procedures did not differ between treatments. Quality of recovery was very, quite or moderately smooth.Conclusions and clinical relevanceInduction of anaesthesia with alfaxalone resulted in similar cardiorespiratory effects when compared to the fentanyl-diazepam-propofol combination and is a clinically acceptable induction agent in sick dogs.     

The effect of midazolam or lidocaine administration prior to etomidate induction of anesthesia on heart rate,arterial pressure,intraocular pressure and serum cortisol concentration in healthy dogs

ObjectiveTo evaluate selected effects of midazolam or lidocaine administered prior to etomidate for co-induction of anesthesia in healthy dogs.Study designProspective crossover experimental study.AnimalsA group of 12 healthy adult female Beagle dogs.MethodsDogs were premedicated with intravenous (IV) butorphanol (0.3 mg kg^–1), and anesthesia was induced with etomidate following midazolam (0.3 mg kg^–1), lidocaine (2 mg kg^–1) or physiologic saline (1 mL) IV. Heart rate (HR), arterial blood pressure, respiratory rate (f_R) and intraocular pressure (IOP) were recorded following butorphanol, after co-induction administration, after etomidate administration and immediately following intubation. Baseline IOP values were also obtained prior to sedation. Etomidate dose requirements and the presence of myoclonus, as well as coughing or gagging during intubation were recorded. Serum cortisol concentrations were measured prior to premedication and 6 hours following etomidate administration.ResultsBlood pressure, f_R and IOP were similar among treatments. Blood pressure decreased in all treatments following etomidate administration and generally returned to sedated values following intubation. HR increased following intubation with midazolam and lidocaine but remained stable in the saline treatment. The dose of etomidate (median, interquartile range, range) required for intubation was lower following midazolam (2.2, 2.1–2.6, 1.7–4.1 mg kg⁻¹) compared with lidocaine (2.7, 2.4–3.6, 2.2–5.1 mg kg⁻¹, p = 0.012) or saline (3.0, 2.8–3.8, 1.9–5.1 mg kg⁻¹, p = 0.015). Coughing or gagging was less frequent with midazolam compared with saline. Myoclonus was not observed. Changes in serum cortisol concentrations were not different among treatments.Conclusions and clinical relevanceMidazolam administration reduced etomidate dose requirements and improved intubation conditions compared with lidocaine or saline treatments. Neither co-induction agent caused clinically relevant differences in measured cardiopulmonary function, IOP or cortisol concentrations compared with saline in healthy dogs. Apnea was noted in all treatments following the induction of anesthesia and preoxygenation is recommended.     

Evaluation of the analgesic effect of fentanyl–ketamine and fentanyl–lidocaine constant rate infusions in isoflurane-anesthetized dogs undergoing thoracolumbar hemilaminectomy

ObjectiveTo evaluate anesthetic conditions and postoperative analgesia with the use of intraoperative constant rate infusions (CRIs) of fentanyl–lidocaine or fentanyl–ketamine in dogs undergoing thoracolumbar hemilaminectomy.Study designProspective, randomized, blinded, clinical study.AnimalsA total of 32 client-owned dogs.MethodsDogs were premedicated with fentanyl (5 μg kg^–1) administered intravenously (IV), anesthesia was induced with IV alfaxalone and maintained with isoflurane. Fentanyl (0.083 μg kg^–1 minute^–1) was infused IV with either ketamine (0.5 mg kg^–1; then 40 μg kg^–1 minute^–1; group KF) or lidocaine (2 mg kg^–1; then 200 μg kg^–1 minute^–1; group LF) assigned randomly. Heart rate, noninvasive arterial pressures, respiratory rate, esophageal temperature, end-tidal partial pressure of carbon dioxide and isoflurane concentration were recorded throughout anesthesia. Maintenance of anesthesia, recovery and postoperative pain (Glasgow Composite Pain Scale) were scored. Cardiopulmonary data were analyzed using a two-way anova with repeated measures, demographics of the two groups with a t test, and scores with Mann–Whitney U test, with p < 0.05.ResultsAll dogs recovered from anesthesia without complications. No significant difference was found between groups for cardiopulmonary variables, total anesthesia time, sedation score and requirement for postoperative sedation or for rescue analgesia. Anesthetic maintenance score was of lower quality in KF than in LF [median (interquartile range): 0 (0–0.5) versus 0 (0–0); p = 0.032)], but still considered ideal. Recovery score was higher and indicative of less sedation in LF than in KF [1 (1–1.5) versus 0.5 (0–1); p < 0.0001]. Pain score was higher in KF than in LF [2 (1–3) versus 1 (1–2); p = 0.0009].Conclusions and clinical relevanceBoth CRIs of KF and LF provided adequate anesthetic conditions in dogs undergoing thoracolumbar hemilaminectomy. Based on requirement for rescue analgesia, postoperative analgesia was adequate in both groups.     

Effects of fentanyl–lidocaine–ketamine versus sufentanil–lidocaine–ketamine on the isoflurane requirements in dogs undergoing total ear canal ablation and lateral bulla osteotomy

ObjectiveTo compare the isoflurane-sparing effects of sufentanil–lidocaine–ketamine (SLK) and fentanyl–lidocaine–ketamine (FLK) infusions in dogs undergoing total ear canal ablation and lateral bulla osteotomy (TECA–LBO).Study designRandomized blinded clinical study.AnimalsA group of 20 client-owned dogs undergoing TECA–LBO.MethodsIntravenous (IV) administration of lidocaine (3 mg kg^–1) and ketamine (0.6 mg kg^–1) with fentanyl (5.4 μg kg^–1; n = 10; FLK group) or sufentanil (0.72 μg kg^–1; n = 10; SLK group) was immediately followed by the corresponding constant rate infusion (CRI) (lidocaine 3 mg kg^–1 hour^–1; ketamine 0.6 mg kg^–1 hour^–1; either fentanyl 5.4 μg kg^–1 hour^–1 or sufentanil 0.72 μg kg^–1 hour^–1). Anaesthesia was induced with propofol 3–5 mg kg^–1 IV and was maintained with isoflurane. End-tidal isoflurane concentration (Fe′Iso) was decreased in 0.2% steps every 15 minutes until spontaneous movements were observed (treated with propofol 1 mg kg^–1 IV) or an increase of > 30% in heart rate or mean arterial pressure from baseline occurred (treated with rescue fentanyl or sufentanil). Quality of recovery and pain were assessed at extubation using the short-form Glasgow Composite Pain Scale (SF-GCPS), Colorado State University Canine Acute Pain scale (CSU-CAP), and visual analogue scale (VAS). Data were analysed with analysis of variance, t tests, Fisher test and Spearman coefficient (p < 0.05).ResultsFe′Iso decreased significantly in SLK group (45%; p = 0.0006) but not in FLK (15%; p = 0.1135) (p = 0.0136). SLK group had lower scores for recovery quality (p = 0.0204), SF-GCPS (p = 0.0071) and CSU-CAP (p = 0.0273) than FLK at extubation. Intraoperative rescue analgesia and VAS were not significantly different between groups.Conclusions and clinical relevanceCompared with FLK infusion, CRI of SLK at these doses decreased isoflurane requirements, decreased pain scores and improved recovery quality at extubation in dogs undergoing TECA–LBO.     

Effects of midazolam before or after alfaxalone for co-induction of anaesthesia in healthy dogs

Objective

To study the effect of alternating the order of midazolam and alfaxalone administration on the incidence of behavioural changes, alfaxalone induction dose and some cardiorespiratory variables in healthy dogs.

Heart rate,arterial pressure and propofol-sparing effects of guaifenesin in dogs

ObjectiveTo evaluate the heart rate (HR) and systemic arterial pressure (sAP) effects, and propofol induction dose requirements in healthy dogs administered propofol with or without guaifenesin for the induction of anesthesia.Study designProspective blinded crossover experimental study.AnimalsA total of 10 healthy adult female Beagle dogs.MethodsDogs were premedicated with intravenous (IV) butorphanol (0.4 mg kg^–1) and administered guaifenesin 5% at 50 mg kg^–1 (treatment G50), 100 mg kg^–1 (treatment G100) or saline (treatment saline) IV prior to anesthetic induction with propofol. HR, invasive sAP and respiratory rate (f_R) were recorded after butorphanol administration, after guaifenesin administration and after propofol and endotracheal intubation. Propofol doses for intubation were recorded. Repeated measures analysis of variance (anova) was used to determine differences in propofol dose requirements among treatments, and differences in cardiopulmonary values over time and among treatments with p < 0.05 considered statistically significant.ResultsPropofol doses (mean ± standard deviation) for treatments saline, G50 and G100 were 3.3 ± 1.0, 2.7 ± 0.7 and 2.1 ± 0.8 mg kg^–1, respectively. Propofol administered was significantly lower in treatment G100 than in treatment saline (p = 0.04). In treatments G50 and G100, HR increased following induction of anesthesia and intubation compared with baseline measurements. HR was higher in treatment G100 than in treatments G50 and saline following induction of anesthesia. In all treatments, sAP decreased following intubation compared with baseline values. There were no significant differences in sAP among treatments. f_R was lower following intubation than baseline and post co-induction values and did not differ significantly among treatments.Conclusions and clinical relevanceWhen administered as a co-induction agent in dogs, guaifenesin reduced propofol requirements for tracheal intubation. HR increased and sAP and f_R decreased, but mean values remained clinically acceptable.     

Comparison between dexmedetomidine and acepromazine in combination with methadone for premedication in brachycephalic dogs undergoing surgery for brachycephalic obstructive airway syndrome

ObjectiveTo compare dexmedetomidine with acepromazine for premedication combined with methadone in dogs undergoing brachycephalic obstructive airway syndrome (BOAS) surgery.Study designRandomized, blinded clinical study.AnimalsA group of 40 dogs weighing mean (± standard deviation) 10.5 ± 6 kg, aged 2.6 ± 1.9 years.MethodsDogs received either acepromazine 20 μg kg^–1 (group A) or dexmedetomidine 2 μg kg^–1 (group D) intramuscularly with methadone 0.3 mg kg^–1. Anaesthesia was induced with propofol and maintained with sevoflurane. Sedation (0–18), induction (0–6) and recovery (0–5) qualities were scored. Propofol dose, hypotension incidence, mechanical ventilation requirement, extubation time, additional sedation, oxygen supplementation, regurgitation and emergency intubation following premedication or during recovery were recorded. Data were analysed using t tests, Mann-Whitney U or Chi-square tests.ResultsGroup A dogs were less sedated [median (range): 1.5 (0–12)] than group D [5 (1–18)] (p = 0.021) and required more propofol [3.5 (1–7) versus 2.4 (1–8) mg kg^–1; p = 0.018]. Induction scores [group A: 5 (4–5); group D 5 (3–5)] (p = 0.989), recovery scores [group A 5 (4–5); group D 5(3–5)](p = 0.738) and anaesthesia duration [group A:93 (50–170); group D 96 (54–263) minutes] (p = 0.758) were similar between groups. Time to extubation was longer in group A 12.5 (3-35) versus group D 5.5 (0–15) minutes; (p = 0.005). During recovery, two dogs required emergency intubation (p > 0.99) and five dogs required additional sedation (p > 0.99). Oxygen supplementation was required in 16 and 12 dogs in group A and D, respectively (p = 0.167); no dogs in group A and one dog in group D regurgitated (p = 0.311).Conclusions and clinical relevanceDexmedetomidine 2 μg kg^–1 produces more sedation but similar recovery quality to acepromazine 20 μg kg^–1 combined with methadone in dogs undergoing BOAS surgery.     

Alfaxalone alone or combined with midazolam or ketamine in dogs: intubation dose and select physiologic effects

Objective

To determine the intubation dose and select physiologic effects of alfaxalone alone or in combination with midazolam or ketamine in dogs.

Field immobilization using alfaxalone and alfaxalone–medetomidine in free-ranging koalas (Phascolarctos cinereus): a randomized comparative study

ObjectiveTo characterize and compare two intramuscular drug protocols using alfaxalone and alfaxalone–medetomidine combination for the field immobilization of free-ranging koalas.Study designBlinded, randomized, comparative field study.AnimalsA total of 66 free-ranging koalas from the Mount Lofty Ranges, South Australia.MethodsKoalas were randomly allocated into two groups. Group A animals were given alfaxalone alone at 3.5 mg kg^–1. Group AM animals were given alfaxalone 2 mg kg^–1 and medetomidine 40 μg kg^–1, reversed with atipamezole at 0.16 mg kg^–1. Blinded operators recorded heart rate (HR), respiratory rate (f_R), cloacal temperature, depth of sedation and times to: first effect, sedation suitable for clinical interventions, first arousal and full recovery. Data were analysed using independent t test, Mann–Whitney U test, chi-square analysis and log-rank test at 5% level of significance.ResultsSuitable immobilization for clinical examination and sample collection was achieved in all animals. In groups A and AM, median time to working depth was 6.5 minutes (range: 3.4–15) and 8.1 minutes (range: 4.3–24) and time to complete recovery was 66 minutes (range: 12–138) and 34 minutes (range: 4–84), respectively, following reversal. Time to first effect was significantly shorter in group A (p = 0.013), whereas time to full arousal was significantly shorter in group AM (p = 0.007) probably due to the administration of atipamezole. Maximum HR was 117 ± 28 beats minute^–1 in group A, which was a significant increase from baseline values (p < 0.0001), whereas group AM showed a significant tachypnoea of 67 ± 25 (normal f_R 10–15; p < 0.0001).Conclusions and clinical relevanceBoth the protocols produced immobilization, enabling clinical examination and sample collection; however, protocol AM was more suitable for field work due to shorter recovery times.     

Dose and cardiopulmonary effects of propofol alone or with midazolam for induction of anesthesia in critically ill dogs

ObjectiveTo determine the dose and cardiopulmonary effects of propofol alone or with midazolam for induction of anesthesia in American Society of Anesthesiologists status ≥III dogs requiring emergency abdominal surgery.Study designProspective, randomized, blinded, clinical trial.AnimalsA total of 19 client-owned dogs.MethodsDogs were sedated with fentanyl (2 μg kg^–1) intravenously (IV) for instrumentation for measurement of heart rate, arterial blood pressure, cardiac index, systemic vascular resistance index, arterial blood gases, respiratory rate and rectal temperature. After additional IV fentanyl (3 μg kg^–1), the quality of sedation was scored and cardiopulmonary variables recorded. Induction of anesthesia was with IV propofol (1 mg kg^–1) and saline (0.06 mL kg^–1; group PS; nine dogs) or midazolam (0.3 mg kg^–1; group PM; 10 dogs), with additional propofol (0.25 mg kg^–1) IV every 6 seconds until endotracheal intubation. Induction/intubation quality was scored, and anesthesia was maintained with isoflurane. Variables were recorded for 5 minutes with the dog in lateral recumbency, breathing spontaneously, and then in dorsal recumbency with mechanical ventilation for the next 15 minutes. A general linear mixed model was used with post hoc analysis for multiple comparisons between groups (p < 0.05).ResultsThere were no differences in group demographics, temperature and cardiopulmonary variables between groups or within groups before or after induction. The propofol doses for induction of anesthesia were significantly different between groups, 1.9 ± 0.5 and 1.1 ± 0.5 mg kg^–1 for groups PS and PM, respectively, and the induction/intubation score was significantly better for group PM.Conclusions and clinical relevanceMidazolam co-induction reduced the propofol induction dose and improved the quality of induction in critically ill dogs without an improvement in cardiopulmonary variables, when compared with a higher dose of propofol alone.     

The effects of maxillary nerve block,ethmoidal nerve block and their combination on cardiopulmonary responses to nasal stimulation in anesthetized Beagle dogs

ObjectiveTo describe an approach for ethmoidal nerve block (E_BLOCK) and to compare the effects of a maxillary nerve block (M_BLOCK), E_BLOCK and their combination (M-E_BLOCK) on heart rate (HR), systolic (SAP), mean (MAP), diastolic (DAP) arterial pressures and respiratory rate (f_R) during nasal stimulation in dogs.Study designProspective, blinded, randomized, crossover placebo-controlled study.AnimalsBeagle dogs (five cadavers, nine live dogs), with a median (interquartile range) weight of 10.5 (10.3–11.0) kg.MethodsThe accuracy of iohexol injections (each 1 mL) at the maxillary and ethmoidal foramina in cadavers was evaluated using computed tomography. Then, anesthetized dogs were administered four bilateral treatments separated by 1 week, saline or 2% lidocaine 1 mL per injection: injections of saline at the maxillary and ethmoidal foramina (Control), injections of lidocaine at the maxillary foramina and saline at the ethmoidal foramina (M_BLOCK), injections of saline at the maxillary foramina and lidocaine at the ethmoidal foramina (E_BLOCK) and injections of lidocaine at all foramina (M-E_BLOCK). The ventral nasal meatus was bilaterally stimulated using cotton swabs, and HR, SAP, MAP, DAP and f_R were continuously recorded. Values for each variable were compared before and after stimulation using Wilcoxon signed-rank test. Changes in variables among treatments were analyzed using Mann–Whitney U and Kruskal–Wallis tests (p ≤ 0.05).ResultsComputed tomography revealed iohexol distribution around the openings of the target foramina in all cadavers. In living dogs, HR, SAP, MAP, DAP and f_R significantly increased after stimulation within each treatment (p < 0.03). Physiologic responses were significantly attenuated, but not absent, in the M-E_BLOCK [HR (p = 0.019), SAP, MAP, DAP and f_R (all p ≤ 0.001)] compared with those in the Control.Conclusions and clinical relevanceConcurrent injections of lidocaine at the maxillary and ethmoidal foramina attenuated HR, arterial pressure and f_R responses to nasal stimulation in Beagle dogs.     

Evaluation of nalbuphine,butorphanol and morphine in dogs during ovariohysterectomy and on early postoperative pain

ObjectiveTo evaluate the effects of nalbuphine, butorphanol and morphine combined with acepromazine on intraoperative and early postoperative pain management in dogs anesthetized for ovariohysterectomy.Study designProspective, randomized blinded clinical study.AnimalsA total of 48 healthy female dogs of different breeds, aged 1–6 years, weighing (mean ± standard deviation) 14.5 ± 4.8 kg.MethodsDogs were randomly assigned into four groups to be intravenously administered nalbuphine (0.5 mg kg^–1; group N0.5), nalbuphine (1.0 mg kg^–1; group N1.0), butorphanol (0.4 mg kg^–1; group B0.4) or morphine (0.2 mg kg^–1; group M0.2) combined with acepromazine (0.02 mg kg^–1) prior to propofol and isoflurane for anesthesia. Heart rate (HR), respiratory rate, systolic arterial pressure and rectal temperature (RT) were recorded at time points during anesthesia. A dynamic interactive visual analog scale applied in three phases (DIVAS I, II and III) and the modified Glasgow composite measure pain scale were used to assess pain before premedication and 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6 hours after extubation. Administration of rescue analgesia was recorded.ResultsAt the left ovarian pedicle ligation, HR was higher in N1.0 than in B0.4 (p = 0.020). RT decreased significantly by the end of surgery in N0.5 (p = 0.043) and B0.4 (p = 0.010). Rescue analgesia was administered postoperatively over 6 hours to eight, seven, nine and 10 dogs in N0.5, N1.0, B0.4 and M0.2, respectively (p = 0.57). DIVAS II was higher in B0.4 than in N1.0 at 2 and 3 hours (p = 0.038 and p = 0.002, respectively) and N0.5 at 3 hours (p = 0.003).Conclusions and clinical relevanceAt the doses used, all premedication protocols provided insufficient intraoperative analgesia, with minimal clinical differences between groups. No premedication provided satisfactory analgesia in the first 6 hours postoperatively.